Let's talk about reporting.

[TheAnimus]

It's interesting, more and more now we've got the main stream sources, dropping their standards to the likes of the huffington post. Just this week we saw a freelancer for the Daily Mail and Mirror get duped by some guys on bodybuilding forum into thinking they were friends with a recent gunman nutjob. Blaming it on the dietary supplement cretaine.

The Mirror published the story, even Wikipedia was updated with the article as the citation.

As a result the whole un-conventional media is getting more and more respect. People like Hexus have always covered technology better than say the BBC, despite having a fraction of the budget.

But the interesting thing is we are seeing not just more croud sourced footage, but more have-a-go-hero-reporting.

Vice for instance, is a, erm, yes, let's call it source, but they have had some guy being a bit of a **** on the ground in Donetsk:
https://news.vice.com/video/russian-...te-dispatch-44

It's interesting because most mainstream news places (ok, vice isn't a news source, it's about as reliable as the district line) won't risk someone's life, but nothing is stopping some have ago clueless twit do it. I wouldn't be surprised if we see a bit of a swing to reporting this way. Competition between freelancers is so fierce they will do whatever they can to get a story. Publish speculation or gossip as fact, cluelessly stumble around a battlefield.

I think we will see more and more of the dead tree press, wither and die, big names like BBC will switch to free photos and videos from viewers type reporting. With the odd person who is a little bit to dim to understand how little they understand the safety of their situation, have a go at being famous.

[Saracen]

Umm.

There's a few more facets to that.

While it is certainly true that unconventional reporting on the web needs to ge viewed with some suspicion, it can be highly accurate. It can also be utter garbage.

Which brings me to freelancers. I think you need to be quite careful with that word. To me, a freelancer is not someone who just publishes their own stuff on their own website, or some platform with little or no editorial control. A freelancer is someone who works, for payment, for a variety of paid employers, but either on a commission basis, or on payment for a given story. In other words, professional, but independent of any one outlet, publication or website.

I'm freelance. I've worked for everything from small magazines to national names, and for publications in several countries.

And, as a freelancer, my professionalism is crucial, critical, imperative. Because, my name is attached to it, and so, therefore, is my reputation. And if I ruin that, or let it get ruined, my career is toast.

So, for any true freelancer, they are generally pretty damn careful about what they say, because a bad reputation puts them out of business. Or it does with reputable media anyway.

Also, even on unconventional media, you can never be quite sure who is writing what. For instance, I've known of specific occasions where extremely well-regarded and exceptionally well-placed individuals have posted, but anonymously, on forums. It can be quite funny watching keyboard warriors "informing" a "poster" that he's wrong about product X, when I know (but can't say) that the person being told he's wrong is a product manager, or even technical director, of the product he's being lectured on.

It comes down to a sense of trust. How much do you trust either an individual, or the reputation and independence of the organisation doing the publishing?

Do you trust the BBC? Or the Mail? Telegraph? Anandtech or Tom's hardware? And so on.

And it's VERY hard to know who to trust, and how much.

[wasabi]

Suspect race-to-the-bottom financials meet everyone-has-a-smartphone have a lot more to do with it.

[Saracen]

That feeds in, too. Freelancing isn't what it was 10 years ago. Good job I'm not reliant on it.

[peterb]

There seems to be less reporting and more interpretation and analysis. I'm watching the "News at Ten", there are about 5 or 6 stories, mainly political, interspersed with some smug and trite comments from Nick Robinson giving his interpretation or spin on events.

It seems sometimes that the media are pumping up stories to make news - because news sells.

[santa claus]

There seems to be less reporting and more interpretation and analysis. I'm watching the "News at Ten", there are about 5 or 6 stories, mainly political, interspersed with some smug and trite comments from Nick Robinson giving his interpretation or spin on events.

Damn you Peter, I logged on to say just that!

[peterb]

Damn you Peter, I logged on to say just that!

Blimey, you out of hibernation?

(Although I must admit I haven't been around that much in the last couple of months)

[santa claus]

Blimey, you out of hibernation?

(Although I must admit I haven't been around that much in the last couple of months)

I've been a bit Scarlet Pimpernel lately (you know, zey seek him here, zey seek him there, zey seek ze Pimple everywhere ). I can tell you missed me.

[Saracen]

....

It seems sometimes that the media are pumping up stories to make news - because news sells.

Sometimes?

Well, I suppose 100% is sometimes.

As for Nick Robinson and his spin, yeah, to a point, but what really winds me up is Newsnight presenters that ask a question, and when someone's 10 words into an answer (and an actual answer, not an evasion, but not the answer the presenter clearly wanted) they interupt and talk over them, often with a long and tedious ramble (yeah, I know, that's a subject I'm expert in) that's more of a soliloquy than a question. Kirsty Warck is always doing this. I do wish the woman would realise that her job is to get answers from guests, not put us all to sleep with her opinions or lectures.

[j1979]

It's interesting, more and more now we've got the main stream sources, dropping their standards to the likes of the huffington post. Just this week we saw a freelancer for the Daily Mail and Mirror get duped by some guys on bodybuilding forum into thinking they were friends with a recent gunman nutjob. Blaming it on the dietary supplement cretaine.

The Mirror published the story, even Wikipedia was updated with the article as the citation.

As a result the whole un-conventional media is getting more and more respect. People like Hexus have always covered technology better than say the BBC, despite having a fraction of the budget.

But the interesting thing is we are seeing not just more croud sourced footage, but more have-a-go-hero-reporting.

Vice for instance, is a, erm, yes, let's call it source, but they have had some guy being a bit of a **** on the ground in Donetsk:
https://news.vice.com/video/russian-...te-dispatch-44

It's interesting because most mainstream news places (ok, vice isn't a news source, it's about as reliable as the district line) won't risk someone's life, but nothing is stopping some have ago clueless twit do it. I wouldn't be surprised if we see a bit of a swing to reporting this way. Competition between freelancers is so fierce they will do whatever they can to get a story. Publish speculation or gossip as fact, cluelessly stumble around a battlefield.

I think we will see more and more of the dead tree press, wither and die, big names like BBC will switch to free photos and videos from viewers type reporting. With the odd person who is a little bit to dim to understand how little they understand the safety of their situation, have a go at being famous.

Interesting that he doesn't even pronounce Donetsk correctly, someone should have picked him up on that. I can't comment on any of the other issues covered by vice but there coverage has been the best and most in depth there has been on Ukraine.

I welcome a return to the Kate Adie style reporting from the front line. They had to edit it down to fit on a 5 min news reel, but with the internet the opposite is true, more detail and less need to water down the true reflection of events. People risk their lives for all sorts of reasons... boxing, F1, parachute jumping, drink driving etc. it's a risk he weighed up, and his motives are his alone..

The rubbish you get on the BBC, is shown to try and let both sides justify an argument. That's why they give air time to bare faced "Russian bear faced" liars like Alexander Nekrassov. When the truth is one sided, they have a pressure to remain "unbiased", all that does in reality is dilute and cloud the truth with misinformation they are obliged to broadcast.

I have watched several medium length interviews and some of the (news24) 4 people debates on BBC news, where Alexander Nekrassov has been allowed to lie, with out being challenged, on countless occasions. And also to a lesser degree Tony Brenton.

Watch any BBC interview with an "average joe" on the streets, and they'll have interviewed 30 or so to filter it down to the 2 or 3 of most sensational one sentence interviews.

There is overwhelming evidence that the people in east Ukraine with the guns are being encouraged, coordinated, armed, supplied, paid by Russia and that the majority of those with heavy firearms are not from east Ukraine at all but are from, Chechnya, Crimea, Russia and Moldova.

But thanks to the rubbish on mainstream TV we end up with a distorted picture.

The media we have in this country, should be more like vice news.

[wasabi]

The endless 'human story' guff winds me up too. Rather than commenting on why factions are warring, the religious, social, economic underpinnings of the problems. Instead we get hospital scenes and grieving mothers. Sure, it is important and adds - pardon the Americanism - colour, but it isn't factual 'news'.

[peterb]

Sometimes?

Well, I suppose 100% is sometimes.

As for Nick Robinson and his spin, yeah, to a point, but what really winds me up is Newsnight presenters that ask a question, and when someone's 10 words into an answer (and an actual answer, not an evasion, but not the answer the presenter clearly wanted) they interupt and talk over them, often with a long and tedious ramble (yeah, I know, that's a subject I'm expert in) that's more of a soliloquy than a question. Kirsty Warck is always doing this. I do wish the woman would realise that her job is to get answers from guests, not put us all to sleep with her opinions or lectures.

Evan Davis and Justin Webb are particular offenders in that respect. Why Ewan avis is on the "Today" team beats me - his claim to fame was hosting "Dragon's den" - an entertainment programme dressed up as financial investment.

The rubbish you get on the BBC, is shown to try and let both sides justify an argument. That's why they give air time to bare faced "Russian bear faced" liars like Alexander Nekrassov. When the truth is one sided, they have a pressure to remain "unbiased", all that does in reality is dilute and cloud the truth with misinformation they are obliged to broadcast.

I don't have a problem with that - two sides should be heard, otherwise there is a justifiable accusation of bias.

have watched several medium length interviews and some of the (news24) 4 people debates on BBC news, where Alexander Nekrassov has been allowed to lie, with out being challenged, on countless occasions.

But you are not exactly unbiassed on the issue - and HEXUS gave you considerable space to air your views, which were, on occasion, quite properly challenged.

any BBC interview with an "average joe" on the streets, and they'll have interviewed 30 or so to filter it down to the 2 or 3 of most sensational one sentence interviews.

That is pandering to the short attention span perceived by broadcasters of their viewers. And the one line soundbite was the speciality of certain politicians. And one person's 'fact' is another person's lie, so some form of inquisitorial interview is probably a good thing, provided it is conducted objectively.

The endless 'human story' guff winds me up too. Rather than commenting on why factions are warring, the religious, social, economic underpinnings of the problems. Instead we get hospital scenes and grieving mothers. Sure, it is important and adds - pardon the Americanism - colour, but it isn't factual 'news'.

Yes, but it grabs the attention, like the sensationalist interview - part of the (IHO) dumbing down of news reporting. But then the longer interviews, conducted in the way Saracen highlighted above, don't do much to elevate the quality of news broadcasting.

The ticker tape on BBC News 24 is probably one of the ether examples of plain reporting.

[kalniel]

It's Evan, not Ewan.

This topic slightly reminds me of a recent Charlie Brooker article about newspapers:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...dangerous-drug

[jimborae]

Just watched some of that Vice News reporting, jesus talk about flies to sh!t syndrome. If I was one of those rebels, and under combat stress,I'd have probably turned my rifle on the photographers & reporters.

[j1979]

Evan Davis and Justin Webb are particular offenders in that respect. Why Ewan avis is on the "Today" team beats me - his claim to fame was hosting "Dragon's den" - an entertainment programme dressed up as financial investment.



I don't have a problem with that - two sides should be heard, otherwise there is a justifiable accusation of bias.



But you are not exactly unbiassed on the issue - and HEXUS gave you considerable space to air your views, which were, on occasion, quite properly challenged.



That is pandering to the short attention span perceived by broadcasters of their viewers. And the one line soundbite was the speciality of certain politicians. And one person's 'fact' is another person's lie, so some form of inquisitorial interview is probably a good thing, provided it is conducted objectively.




Yes, but it grabs the attention, like the sensationalist interview - part of the (IHO) dumbing down of news reporting. But then the longer interviews, conducted in the way Saracen highlighted above, don't do much to elevate the quality of news broadcasting.

The ticker tape on BBC News 24 is probably one of the ether examples of plain reporting.

The "air time" hexus gave me on Ukraine... how is that relevant at all to anything? I am just responding to the thread that was about Donetsk. The forum can't survive without people writing posts, so... You're Welcome.

Opinions are fine, distortion of the facts are not wanted, but we accept they will happen, but false claims appear all the time on the BBC, and they quite often go uncontested. That is wrong and unacceptable.

Why should there be allowed "both sides of the argument" if one side is wrong?

Should Marlboro be allowed to come on a news debate and show statistics that say cigarettes don't cause cancer? If one side is blatantly spreading false claims then it should not be given air time or at the very least ripped apart on TV.

[peterb]

Why should there be allowed "both sides of the argument" if one side is wrong?

Who determines who is 'right' and who is 'wrong'? A reporters job is to report the facts as he sees them, not make a value judgement about what is right and wrong.

The HEXUS position on your posts is relevant. No judgement was made on whether you were right or wrong. You made a case from the facts as you saw them, others challenged your interpretation.

You claim that the BBC reports are biassed, but the BBC has a (generally deserved) reputation to maintain. You do not, and your posts indicate you have a partisan view. So whose account do you think is the more credible?

I only mentioned it because you picked it up when someone else used it as an example!

However, this is not a discussion about the position in Ukraine, you already have a thread for that.